Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 41
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,637
Posts51,169
Members927
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,435
Tom 3,453
chestnutmare 2,915
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,758
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 20
Pilgrim 14
John_C 3
Meta4 1
Johan 1
Recent Posts
Presuppositional Debate
by Tom. Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:07 AM
Mexican illegal immigration into the USA
by Pilgrim. Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:59 PM
Same sex atrraction sinful then what?
by Tom. Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:35 AM
TWU Denied Law School Accreditation
by Tom. Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:14 AM
Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text
by Pilgrim. Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:43 AM
Messianic Judaism
by Tom. Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:29 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 4
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Spurgeon #10047
Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:13 AM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:13 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Well this is one Reformed Baptist who dearly loves Spurgeon but clearly sees that he was in error regarding his millennial viewpoint.


Just my opinion Gerry

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

Re: Spurgeon #10048
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:47 AM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:47 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Dear SS:

Quote
Well this is one Reformed Baptist who dearly loves Spurgeon but clearly sees that he was in error regarding his millennial viewpoint.


The only error of Spurgeon that I "clearly see" is his cigar smoking, which no doubt complicated his health problems in later life of which gout and obiesity were known, the former from his writing and speaking of it, the later from his pictures.

Remember, excess weight of 20% is considered obiese and is backed up by huge amounts of data on high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, etc so that if one is supposed to weigh 180 at 6 feet of height but instead weighs 216 he is obeise. Also, there is data mounting that if anything the chart values, from which this example was derived, are too liberal with respect to maximum weights. Issues such as excess weight are rampant in our materialistic, physical oriented society, and we try to sweep them under the rug, but God sees them, and is displeased.

In my own case, I stayed near my chart weight for all my life until my middle years and then weighed about 10 lb over. Then I developed the problem with my back and could no longer exercise, and put on weight, but the Lord convicted me about the excess weight very clearly way before this happened, as soon as he began to work powerfully in my life. At that time I was only 5 to 10 lb overweight and on a 6 foot 1 frame, I looked "thin" to many, and was repeatedly told so, especially as I began to loose weight in obedience to Him, but I knew better in my heart.

Thus, I too believe that Spurgeon was "clearly in error", but not with respect to his views of the Millenium. Sometimes we humans, with our deceptive hearts, make much of one supposed error, often a "doctrinal one" in order to avoid another, more obvious, and more practical, one.

In Him,

Gerry

Re: Spurgeon #10049
Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:49 AM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:49 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
"I cultivate my flowers and burn my weeds." ~Charles Haddon Spurgeon

1. Where in Scripture do you find that smoking a cigar is a sin?

2. What proof do you have that C.H. Spurgeon “knew” that cigar smoking was injurious to his health.

3. What proof do you have that Spurgeon over ate and did not simply have a gland problem or slow metabolism?
Spurgeon said,

Quote
The condition of your body must be attended to...a little more...common sense would be a great gain to some who are ultra spiritual, and attribute all their moods of feeling to some supernatural cause when the real reason lies far nearer to hand. Has it not often happened that dyspepsia has been mistaken for backsliding, and bad digestion has been set down as a hard heart?
4. So on your specific charges of Spurgeon’s specific error (sin) what specific proof do you have to make your charge? I am not saying that CH Spurgeon was without sin. After all, his eschatology was not A-Mil.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

As Charles Spurgeon said long ago, "There is no point of biblical interpretation and application where men make greater mistakes than the relationship which exists between the Law and the Gospel."

On October 19, 1856 he preached for the first time in the Music Hall of the Royal Surrey Gardens because his own church would not hold the people. The 10,000 seating capacity was far exceeded as the crowds pressed in. Someone shouted, "Fire!" and there was great panic in parts of the building. Seven people were killed in the stampede and scores were injured.

Spurgeon was 22 years old and was overcome by this calamity. He said later, "Perhaps never soul went so near the burning furnace of insanity, and yet came away unharmed." But not all agreed he was unharmed. The specter brooded over him for years and one close friend and biographer said, "I cannot but think, from what I saw, that his comparatively early death might be in some measure due to the furnace of mental suffering he endured on and after that fearful night."
Spurgeon also knew the adversity of family pain. He had married Susannah Thomson January 8 in the same year of the calamity at Surrey Gardens. His only two children, twin sons, were born the day after the calamity on October 20.

Susannah was never able to have more children. In 1865 (nine years later), when she was 33 years old she became a virtual invalid and seldom heard her husband preach for the next 27 years till his death. Some kind of rare cervical operation was attempted in 1869 by James Simpson, the father of modern gynecology, but to no avail. So to Spurgeon's other burdens were added a sickly wife and the inability to have more children, though his own mother had given birth to seventeen.

He also knew unbelievable physical pain. Spurgeon suffered from gout, rheumatism and Bright's disease (inflammation of the kidneys). His first attack of gout came in 1869 at the age of 35. It became progressively worse so that "approximately one third of the last twenty-two years of his ministry was spent out of the Tabernacle pulpit, either suffering, or convalescing, or taking precautions against the return of the illness." In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Lucian says, `I thought a cobra had bitten me, and filled my veins with poison; but it was worse,-it was gout.' That was written from experience, I know."

For over half his ministry Spurgeon dealt with ever increasingly recurrent pain in his joints that cut him down from the pulpit and from his labors again and again. The diseases finally took his life at age 57 while he was convalescing in Mentone, France.

Charles Spurgeon: Preaching Through Adversity

Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10050
Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:35 AM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:35 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Dear Joe:

Quote
Where in Scripture do you find that smoking a cigar is a sin?


"Does not even nature itself teach you that long hair on a man is sin?"

If one, by the simple facts of nature, is incapable of observing that smoking is injurious to the body, that one is to be pitied.

Quote
What proof do you have that C.H. Spurgeon “knew” that cigar smoking was injurious to his health.


You are no doubt familiar with Spurgeon's disagreement with Ironside about the issue of smoking. Apparently Ironside knew it was a sin.

As if the conviction of the Spirit and commonsense were not enough, my friend, I would further contend that the Medical Community of Spurgeons time was well aware of the harmful effects of smoking, though not to the depths of modern science. Therefore, for you to plead ignorance of the matter is most sad my friend, and for you to accuse me of falsly pointing out Spurgeons error is even more grevious.

Is it because you smoke, Joe, that you are blind to these things? Have you made it down to the cancer ward of Tampa's largest hospital and walked down the isles and seen those who have been operated on for cancers of the oral cavity and throat, many of whom will tell you that they never inhaled, some of whom didn't smoke at all, but "only" dipped snuff, or chewed tobacco. Might be a good idea to speak with some of them too, the ones that can still speak that is. No, the problem is well documented sir, nor is it a modern phenomena only.

Quote
What proof do you have that Spurgeon over ate and did not simply have a gland problem or slow metabolism?


I have none whatsoever, specifically, with respect to Spurgeons case, Joe, but I base my observations,rather, on: 1) the common knowledge that such "gladular problems" are very rare,and "slow metabolism" as you put it, is what everyone who ages suffers from, thus demanding that they eat less than they did when younger to maitain a healthy body weight. 2) Spurgeon, by his own admission, smoked for relief from his labors and the stresses of a most demanding and difficult ministry, and the vast majority of people who overeat do so for the same reasons, as neurotransmitters which create pleasure sensations in the brain are released when we eat, smoke, drink, shop, fish, or do anything that we desire to do, 3) knowing a bit of the nature of fallen man, I don't believe Spurgeon was above error in these areas. Do I "know" that he over ate? No, but is there reason to believe that he might well have? Yes.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what your point was exactly, but if it was to prove that Spurgeon knew about the dangers of overeating and spoke against them, that does not surprise me, I don't think it requires modern science to establish the obvious; if it was to prove that Spurgeon was a great and wonderful man, who knew physical and mental suffering in great meassure, you don't need to prove that to me as I knew it already, and I love and admire him greatly, but he like all of us, was just a man.

In Him,

Gerry

Re: Spurgeon #10051
Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:57 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:57 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Quote

The only error of Spurgeon that I "clearly see" is his cigar smoking, which no doubt complicated his health problems in later life of which gout and obiesity were known, the former from his writing and speaking of it, the later from his pictures.


First of all Gerry its clear to me you don't clearly see the error. As for Spurgeon's smoking and dietary concerns that clearly was his concern and not mine.

Second why do you bring up smoking and obesity at all? The conversation was in regard to the millennium views of Spurgeon, or are you taking a jab at me? If so I don't appreciate it at all.

Re: Spurgeon #10052
Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:39 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Gerry to my question, “" [color:"0000FF"]Where in Scripture do you find that smoking a cigar is a sin?[/color], you answered, "[color:"FF0000"]Does not even nature itself teach you that long hair on a man is sin?[/color] "

Isogesis. First, no where in Scripture does its state you cannot smoke. Second, after taking a Scripture out of it context (long hair does not = cigars), you assume it is natural not to smoke. Third, if you will do some history studies you will find out that smoking was done long ago (at least to 4000--6,000 BC). You may even desire to see what else Columbus discovered in 1492. Different things are "natural" for different people. I am not saying this makes it right, but it certainly disproves your statement about it not being natural for some. All things are lawful….

Quote
As if the conviction of the Spirit and commonsense were not enough, my friend, I would further contend that the Medical Community of Surgeon's time was well aware of the harmful effects of smoking, though not to the depths of modern science. Therefore, for you to plead ignorance of the matter is most sad my friend, and for you to accuse me of falsly pointing out Spurgeons error is even more grevious.
First, apparently Spurgeon was not convicted by the Holy Spirit since he grew his own. As matter a fact he believed and was convicted that smoking was not a sin. In the autumn of 1874 a passage-at-arms on the subject of smoking occurred between Spurgeon and Dr. Pentecost. . . . The latter had been received as a brother preacher at the chapel and as a guest at Clapham. After visiting the Continent, the Tabernacle was revisited. On this occasion Mr. Spurgeon invited him to divide the sermon, proposing that one should lay down the doctrine, and that the other should close by enforcing and illustrating the subject. With no thought beyond the illustration of the subject, Dr. Pentecost related his own struggle with the cigar. Mr. Spurgeon, as a smoker, made the application personal, and, when the brother sat down, immediately arose and combated what had been said. Perhaps the most graphic description of what took place within the Tabernacle, however, was given by a morning newspaper:—

Quote
The Daily Telegraph Scandal

Last Sunday evening, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, the deservedly popular, unquestionably benevolent, and eminently shrewd Mr. Spurgeon was preaching a sermon on the sinfulness of little sins—a somewhat favourite topic among Nonconformist clergymen, and on which, under the title of 'The Little Foxes,' some curious lay-sermons have been written by Mrs. Harriet Beecher-Stowe.

The gist of Mr. Spurgeon's discourse was that habitual indulgence in little sins leads to the commission of great ones—a position enforced by one of the most famous English divines in the illustration of the 'boy who plays with the devil's rattles.

At the close of his useful sermon the minister introduced an American clergyman who, he said, was anxious to address a few words to the congregation. This reverend gentleman 'improved the opportunity' by inveighing fiercely against the sin of smoking tobacco, especially in the form of cigars, and told his hearers how he had struggled and fought against the pernicious habit, and how at last, by the blessing and with the assistance of Providence, he had conquered his addiction to the weed.

Then uprose Mr. Spurgeon and, with quiet humor, remarked that he would not allow the congregation to separate without telling them that he did not consider smoking to be a sin, and that, by the grace of God, he hoped to enjoy a good cigar before going to bed that night.

Hypercriticism should discern no irreverence in the conclusion of those remarks. We should be thankful for all things; and in observing that he hoped to enjoy a cigar through the Divine grace, he was but echoing the natural piety of Charles Lamb, who asked why we should not say grace before going out for a walk in the fields as well as before and after meat. Dr. Johnson said grace before he began the 'Rambler'; and if Mr. Spurgeon be a smoker, he only adds another and most excellent name to the long catalogue of distinguished English divines of the Established and the Dissenting Churches who have solaced themselves with that Indian weed.
Thus, Gerry your speculation once again is in error.

Second, if you study history you will find that Spurgeon was born in 1834. According to his own testimony he was saved 1850. Spurgeon died in 1892. Now, history records for us that ONLY in 1805-1807 that CERIOLI isolated nicotine, the "essential oil" or "essence of tobacco." In 1809, Louis Nicolas Vanquelin isolated nicotine from tobacco smoke. It was not even till 1858 that fears about the effects on smoking on health were first raised in The Lancet, and then there was still no evidence…... Thus, in the time of Spurgeon, they did not have the medical facts that we have today to show the harmful side effects of normal-heavy smoking (they were just being discovered).

Now to gluttony. Your ONLY evidence is a photo. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> If I were to judge you according to the same criteria I would say you are a flapping bird (ref: your avatar). Gerry your speculation is not exact knowledge and thus is not a proper foundation for pointing the finger and say you are a glutton. While I would agree that Spurgeon was a sinner, you have no evidence that he was a glutton. Yes, the rest of my post did partly point to the fact that Spurgeon spoke against gluttony. He goes further, “As I would not knowingly live even in the smallest violation of the law of God, and sin in the transgression of the law, I will not own to sin when I am not conscious of it.” Thus, Gerry he would not purposely over eat, that is if you believe someone like Spurgeon.

Quote
Is it because you smoke, Joe, that you are blind to these things? Have you made it down to the cancer ward of Tampa's largest hospital and walked down the isles and seen those who have been operated on for cancers of the oral cavity and throat, many of whom will tell you that they never inhaled, some of whom didn't smoke at all, but "only" dipped snuff, or chewed tobacco. Might be a good idea to speak with some of them too, the ones that can still speak that is. No, the problem is well documented sir, nor is it a modern phenomena only.
Gerry, no I do not smoke. But, my father died of lung cancer (brought on by by 60 years of "excessive" smoking and no cigars) about 50 miles from the hospital in Tampa you mentioned (St. Joseph's Hospital --Tampa Bay Cancer Center--where my father had chemo treatments till the last days of his life), so thank you for the memories. My wife has this “ever so rare glandular problem” (thyroid) which, according to her doctor, affects 1 in 20 people (How Thyroid Problems can Affect your Health). Could Spurgeon have had a thyroid problem, slow metabolism, et. al.? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

You condemn one for smoking/gluttony on NO SCRIPTURAL or "knowledgable grounds"— IMHO being a lit up legalistic Pharisee is a serious sin…As Spurgeon says, “There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour…. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God.” <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10053
Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:33 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,454
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,454
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Joe

I think I lean towards your view of Spurgeon not sinning by smoking cigars.
However, I am a little tossed about whether it would be a sin today for a person to smoke.
I am told that even one cigar or cigarette a day can contribute to cancer or other lethal or non lethal diseases.
So the question I must ask myself is if I knowingly do something like smoking knowing that I am putting my health at risk (and perhaps the people around me) am I sinning?

I don't want to be legalistic about this, but I have a hard time understanding how I wouldn't be sinning.

Tom

Re: Spurgeon [Re: Tom] #10054
Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:39 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:39 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,435
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,435
NH, USA
Quote
I don't want to be legalistic about this, but I have a hard time understanding how I wouldn't be sinning.

Tom,

I have no desire to either defend or condemn smoking here. But I am more interested in "principle"; i.e., sin = trangression of the law. Thus, if anything is to be deemed a sin then it must be something which is contrary to a law of God. Thus, it needs to be asked, what moral law does smoking transgress, in your opinion?

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Spurgeon [Re: Tom] #10055
Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:51 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:51 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
If we begin totally (without exception) condemning everything as sin then we will get to the point that ALL food is not able to be eaten---milk, eggs,..... can all cause cancer, give you high cholesterol, etc. My BP meds can give me other side effects, that I may die from, but if I do not take them I will die real soon. Thus, I take a non-legalistic approach here and pray before food and even my meds.....

God gave us all things to be enjoyed (1 Tim 6:17, et. al., of course, He speaks not of sin here). Generally speaking: Some enjoy an occasional cigar--no problem. Some enjoy an occasional glass of wine--no problem. The problem comes in excesses and in proper/improper discernment. The Scripture speaks of moderation (Phil 4:5). The determining point of whether something is sin "in this type of situation" (1) does it transgress the law of God (2) if it does not, what is moderate and excessive.

For the record, the object of the posts above are merely discussing Spurgeon. It would be faulty to judge Surgeon by the knowledge (on smoking) we have today.

PS: For the record I did not always believe this way. Thanks to many at the forum here for showing me this light in Scripture.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10056
Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:24 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:24 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Joe,

I want to compliment you on this post. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

You really did your homework and kept to the topic. I learned a lot from your reply.


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
What about [Re: J_Edwards] #10057
Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:57 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:57 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,758
Mississippi Gulf Coast
John_C Offline

Permanent Resident
John_C  Offline

Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,758
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Joe,

Thanks for your responses on the subject


In Spurgeon's day smoking was not seen as a badge, so to speak, of a free-spirit, anti-authoritarian attitude. ISTM that today it would be difficult for someone to start smoking without going through that attitude. So, it might be safe to say that the starting of smoking probably indicates a sin that needs to be dealt with; however, smokers who have repented of those attitudes would not be sinning by their smoking.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Re: What about [Re: John_C] #10058
Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:29 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:29 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
There are many situations that if a person smoked it would be a sin. If a person has lung cancer of course smoking would be a sin--this IMHO is a no-brainer.

As far as a badge today it would indeed true for many, but not all. This would have to be judged on a case by case basis. If I did not have HBP and began smoking tonight <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> (I hate the taste) it would not be a sin. But, I would not smoke in front (or at least I would first ask) of Gerry as it would offend a weaker .......Many may pick up a pipe just because they like the smell/taste and thus it may help them relax....et. al. Though I would not smoke, I do like the smell of a good tobacco (pipe) ..... "sometimes."


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: What about [Re: J_Edwards] #10059
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:44 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:44 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" /> I can see that it very well might be a sin. Without being a legalist (please no tomatoes!) I think of a mother who is pregnant smoking. Certainly this breaks the law of love, or someone who smokes when their child has asthma. My mother almost six feet tall and big boned gave birth to healthy, but small babies around 6 pounds-7, compared to me 5' 6 smaller boned who had almost 9 pound babies!
All because of smoking while pregnant. Two of my sisters had asthma and were repeatedly hospitalized. Finally my mother stopped smoking when she had two strokes!
It is also poor stewardship of one's body like eating poorly would be. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />

OK I'm done now! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" />

Re: What about #10060
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:56 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
I would agree that since we have evidence to prove that smoking harms "infants" that mothers should not smoke nor frequent places where smoke may be present.

As far as the body issue, yes it should be a concern, but 1 (example) pipe smoke a week I doubt will harm the body any more than me having a desert every now and then, though I have HBP (my doc approved 1 per week). We do not stop eating just because overeating is a sin, thus....

Moderation in Christianity is a wonderful thing that (1) should not be neglected (2) should not be misused (3) should not become legalistic (4) that should be based on (a) the person (b) their situation (c) how their situation affects others (d) and ultimately God's glory/Word. Pray and seeking God's will in these things is of course of utmost importance.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: Wes] #10061
Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:18 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
United States
T
The_Saint Offline
Enthusiast
The_Saint  Offline
Enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
United States
I feel compelled to add my own little quip in here. Obviously long hair is not tobacco. But we must be very careful how far we take "nature" and what it dictates.

I do not have wheels, but I drive a car. God did not create me with wings, yet I fly. Does not nature itself teach man does not fly?

Such a position can easily lead very quickly into ridiculous areas. One might even say the Amish follow that principle.


"There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." - Jonathan Edwards
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10062
Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:26 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:26 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Dear Joe:

Quote
Second, after taking a Scripture out of it context (long hair does not = cigars), you assume it is natural not to smoke.


Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are actually arguing that because people have smoked for thousands of years (yes Joe, I know about Columbus and Sir Walter Raleigh too) that it is "natural" to smoke in the same sense that eating is natural? Oh really? How interesting, I never thought of it that way Joe.

Second, you tell us that you don't smoke, but I seem to recall when I posted on this subject some months back, in which I mentioned specifically smoking in relation to desecrating our temple, perhaps you recall, but anyway I seem to recall you mentioning smoking a pipe at that time, and you also tell us that your doctor has approved your smoking 1 pipe per week? Well, I guess I'm a little confused here. Why would your Dr. approve something you don't do?

As for Spurgeon's conviction of sin and his confrontation with Pentecost (sorry I said Dr. Irons in my last post meaning to say Pentecost) over the issue I find your arguments unpersuasive. I have no idea whether Spurgeon was convicted by the Spirit or not, certainly Pentecost was, as were quite a number of others in the Christian community at the time. Just because a person does something doesn't mean he wasn't convicted by the Spirit on the issue.


As for your arguments about the Medical Communities postion on the issue at the time of Spurgeon, again, very unpersuasive. I'll go with the facts and the obvious, that being taking smoke into the lungs is not natural, normal, healthy, beneficial etc.

When Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomachs sake and for his many ailments, he didn't say take a little smoke. Maybe there is a good reason why.

But if you want to smoke Joe and you think it's good for you to do so then by all means don't let this screaming legalistic pharisee's views disturb you. You do whatever you want in your temple and I'll do what I think is right in mine.

As to your wife's glandular problem, if you're refering to low thyroid, I haven't looked up the data so if your Dr. says 1 in 20 I won't argue with him, but it seems that obiesity is much more common in this country than 1 in 20, which was my point, and further, I don't believe that obiesity, or mentioning it as a sin, makes me a legalist.

In Him,

Gerry

Re: Spurgeon #10063
Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:37 PM
Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:37 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Dear SS:

Quote
Second why do you bring up smoking and obesity at all? The conversation was in regard to the millennium views of Spurgeon, or are you taking a jab at me? If so I don't appreciate it at all.


I brought it up for the reasons I clearly stated in my post, which you might go back and reread, not to "take a jab" at you. I have no idea what your condition is with respect to weight or smoking, and I shared with you the Lord's dealing with me in this area.

If your conscience is bothering you because you have a weight problem however, as your brother in Christ it would be an act of love to confront you with it not only because it is sin, if it is indeed obiesity, but also because the health effects are well established.

Perhaps you might find interesting Jay Adams' (a legalistic pharisee of some repute) writings on the relationship between sickness and sin in his Competent to Counsel. I found it most interesting and beneficial reading.

In Him,

Gerry

Last edited by acts2027; Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:39 PM.
Re: Spurgeon #10064
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:12 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:12 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are actually arguing that because people have smoked for thousands of years (yes Joe, I know about Columbus and Sir Walter Raleigh too) that it is "natural" to smoke in the same sense that eating is natural? Oh really? How interesting, I never thought of it that way Joe.
No, Gerry that is not the point <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

I was using history to show that people have “natural tendencies” given by God for certain things. We are all born with “general tendencies” and develop others throughout life. You like and dislike certain foods? As an infant you could not give me certain baby foods or you would get them back quick <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> We are each born with certain chemical make-ups that make us prone, some to sweets, some to vegetables, some to…. Some people have a natural inclination for tobacco type products—as shown from the brief history that was already posted (the point). Again, there is nothing wrong with this as balanced by what was said already in the other posts.

Quote
Second, you tell us that you don't smoke, but I seem to recall when I posted on this subject some months back, in which I mentioned specifically smoking in relation to desecrating our temple, perhaps you recall, but anyway I seem to recall you mentioning smoking a pipe at that time, and you also tell us that your doctor has approved your smoking 1 pipe per week? Well, I guess I'm a little confused here. Why would your Dr. approve something you don't do?
I am very confused by this as well, [color:"FF0000"]as I never stated it[/color]. Please feel free to do a search and locate it…. and when you do not find it feel free to post an apology for your misrepresentation of the facts. Also, where did you ever get the notion that my doctor said I could smoke a pipe once a week? I have extremely HBP and it is very difficult to regulate. No doctor in his right mind would EVER say smoke to someone in my condition!!! I guess we are playing Gerry's Guessing Game? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

Quote
When Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomachs sake and for his many ailments, he didn't say take a little smoke. Maybe there is a good reason why.
I have never heard of tobacco as a cure for an ailing stomach? Wine is a proven remedy for this. Maybe Timothy was like me and did not like the taste of tobacco? Of course, if your logic is so clear to you then this should assist you in seeing how irrational it is: Paul did not say, “post on the Highway forum for your stomach’s sake” either. Thus, you should not make any more posts.... We will see if that is really what you believe?

Quote
As to your wife's glandular problem, if you're refering to low thyroid, I haven't looked up the data so if your Dr. says 1 in 20 I won't argue with him, but it seems that obiesity is much more common in this country than 1 in 20, which was my point, and further, I don't believe that obiesity, or mentioning it as a sin, makes me a legalist.
The point is that Spurgeon could have been in the 1 in 20. He could have had a low metabolism. He could have had a problem with his enzymes. The simple fact is YOU do not really know and for you to state emphatically that he was a glutton and in error for overeating makes you a false accuser of the brethren. All you have done is “speculate” off a picture with no medical data and against his very word that he said he would not openly sin in this way. There is no defense for this (1) it is sin (2) it is irrational (3) it is being dishonest with the facts that you “really” have. In the end, we may find that Spurgeon knew that tobacco was bad for him and that he overate on purpose (though he has stated otherwise), but this will not correct the fat nature of your "illogical" thought.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: Pilgrim] #10065
Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:27 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:27 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,454
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,454
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim

I guess I can only speak for myself, but I know that if I started smoking, knowing that I could possibly cause my health harm. It would be because of rebellion that I did so. I think rebellion would be that moral law you are asking about.

Tom

Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10066
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:24 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:24 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 64
NC, USA
GottseiEhre Offline
Member
GottseiEhre  Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 64
NC, USA

Quote

As far as the body issue, yes it should be a concern, but 1 (example) pipe smoke a week I doubt will harm the body any more than me having a desert every now and then, though I have HBP (my doc approved 1 per week). We do not stop eating just because overeating is a sin, thus....


In Gerry's defense, on this matter, this sentence is a rather confusing sentence on first read, but after a re-read, I saw that you meant one dessert per week, not one pipe per week! I hope that clarifies a little, and brings the "heat-level" down a little!
troy


Grace is but glory begun;
Glory is but grace perfected!
- Jonathan Edwards
Re: Spurgeon [Re: Tom] #10067
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:29 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:29 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
I know that if I started smoking, knowing that I could possibly cause my health harm.
What are you going to eat?

Doctor’s now say, “We already know that frying foods is unhealthy, but now scientists say even grilling and broiling — cooking anything at high temperatures — could be wreaking havoc on the heart. The FDA has ruled that by 2006, all processed foods must note on the nutrition facts label the trans fat level. The concern about trans fats is that they act like unhealthy saturated fats, raising LDL cholesterol (the bad cholesterol) levels in the blood. But trans fats pack an even more potent nutritional whammy than saturated fats – they lower the HDL cholesterol (good cholesterol) as well"

Scientists now say that of the 99% of the foods we eat, “The acid wastes, toxins, mutagens, and carcinogens that build up within cells, as well as the daily onslaught of excess free radicals eventually cause some cells to become cancerous – killing an estimated 30% of Americans….. Some of the waste material builds up in the arteries and clogs them, leading to high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, arteriosclerosis, strokes, etc. – killing an estimated 35% of Americans.”

So we cannot cook food or eat processed foods without there being some risk—and thus with your logic we should not eat any of them. This leaves us with natural vegetables. I am sorry I have more bad news even here, as, “A study in a recent issue of the highly respected journal Science reported that lipid hydroperoxides (rancid fat molecules) react with vitamin C to form products that could potentially harm DNA.” Pesticides on fruits and vegetables may cause cancer. During the Clinton administration this report surfaced, “The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences received headline coverage across America for its report "Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children." NRC concluded that there was "potential for concern" about the risk agricultural chemicals pose to those under the age of 18….NRC reports that childhood cancers have increased 7.6% since 1973.” I am sure we could go on and on about every food group, et. al.

Now some of these reports may end up being false in the long run, but if you stay around long enough others will surface. If we follow the rule of thumb that we cannot eat anything that “may be bad” for us then in all honesty you will not be here 40 days from now. Maybe sooner as you would not be allowed to drink water either. We live in a fallen world. A fallen world has diseases and “all kinds of things” (even the air: are you going to stop breathing?) is harmful to us. Yes, we live in a fallen world and thus I see the importance all the more so to pray for what we eat. Yes, eat as healthy as you can, but that glass of O.J. may be destroying your DNA ! Pray for your food and your meds!

Quote
1 Timothy 4:1-9 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" /> I guess we could have a New Weight Watcher's Bible: Luke 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you after analyzing its DNA chemical makeup.... and calling Jenny Craig...Of course, I like this report, "Chocolate may be better for your health than tea because it contains more of a chemical that could prevent cancer and heart disease...The new research measures the amount of catechins - the chemical thought to be behind the benefits - in different types of chocolate....Catechins are believed to protect against heart disease and cancer and so eating products that contain them could have health benefits." I need a box of Godiva's. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: GottseiEhre] #10068
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:58 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
I apologize if that was confusing (though it clearly makes a comparison using the words: ...any more than...). If someone reads "all the words" in the post, it does compare "a person" that may smoke a pipe once a week with "me," whom my doctor allows 1 desert per week (pipe and desert are clearly spelled differently) ..... Of course, I am still looking for the post where it says I smoke, that Gerry seems so sure of.....Maybe this is the thread he is speaking of? Of course, there is one of our members here that smokes a pipe. Maybe he will decide to pipe in as well and shed some light on the matter.

Gerry I understand your occupational/environmental health experience, but you cannot take this and become legalistic about it. You yourself have said, "I wasn't going to post anything on smoking because I figured everyone would just take it as another legalistic or self righteous post, a label I no doubt deserve."


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10069
Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:42 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:42 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,435
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,435
NH, USA
Quote
Of course, there is one of our members here that smokes a pipe. Maybe he will decide to pipe in as well and shed some light on the matter.

Okay.. okay! I'll "pipe" in! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I obviously don't consider smoking a pipe a sin; i.e., a violation of any of the moral laws of God. There are situations where I do choose not to smoke my pipe for the sake of a weaker brother/sister. But this is my right and duty as is laid out by Paul, particularly in Romans 14.

As to the health issue and tied in with that the biblical texts, e.g. 1Cor 3:16 that speak of my body being the temple of the Holy Spirit. First of all, the Holy Spirit isn't being affected by my pipe smoking. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Secondly, just living on this corrupted earth exposes my body to all kinds of pollutants and foreign substances which were not here before the Fall. People are dying of cancer, strange viruses, heart disease, etc., where smoking or drinking or any of the other "cardinal no-no's" aren't done. George Burns lived past 100 and was a very heavy cigar smoker. Yes, heavy cigarette smoking is a definite contributing factor to lung cancer, emphysema, and other ailments and is something I think should not be done. However, many years ago, I took out a large life insurance policy. One of the questions asked in the preliminary interview was, "Are you a smoker?" I answered, "Yes, I smoke a pipe". The salesman replied, then we will check "No, non-smoker" because we (the insurance company) don't consider pipe-smokers to be smokers. The company also required that I submit to a rigorous physical examination to ascertain my physical health for obvious reasons. After the examination report came back, the salesman sat down with me once again to tell me that I was in great physical health and that he could then proceed to process my policy. I asked him what the examination revealed about anything that would relate to my pipe smoking and he said that all the blood tests, lung x-rays, etc. all showed no signs whatsoever that I smoked. There was distinguishable nicotine in my blood, lungs where clear, etc.

So.... bottom line for ME is that I will continue to enjoy smoking my pipe as long as I am able to do so. In almost 30 years, I have only had [color:"red"]2[/color] people complain about my pipe. Both were radical environmentalist, healthniks that looked like they could use a healthy dose of vitamin supplements. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> The overwhelming majority of people enjoy the aroma of my pipe tobacco.

Again, if someone thinks that they can build a biblical case to prove that I am sinning against God by smoking a pipe, they are free to try and do so. But like Spurgeon, I am not convinced there is any such "proof", for if there was, I would surely repent and quit smoking a pipe immediately. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10070
Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:45 AM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:45 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Michigan, USA
MHeath Offline
Addict
MHeath  Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Michigan, USA
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Weight Watcher's Bible hehehe

I was thinking as I was reading this thread about the verse in Hezekiah. "You shall not have a BMI over 25. You shall not eat any processed food with any chemicals. You shall not eat white flour, or white sugar. You shall drink no caffeine. All are an abomination."

I started doing this awhile back. Til I realized that I was thinking WAY too much about what was going on with my body. I started feeling as though my body was becoming a sort of idol. I was going to post the verse, but Joe already did, that we should eat what is set before us because, when we thank God for it, He sanctifies it. I always pray over our food too.. with that in mind, with a truly thankful heart that God has provided for us and that I was able to come up with something to cook.

I am overweight.. but I have been pregnant for FIVE years! lolol. And I am working on it now.. counting calories and all. But I don't think I am in sin because I am overweight. However, I do feel convicted when I eat til I'm sick like I did at Christmas. People don't need to be fat to be gluttons either.

As far as Spurgeon goes, he did not have the benefit of Tony Robbin's "Gazelle' or the nordic track, or the total gym. The man was in pain all the time, and I am thinking he didn't exactly have the energy to go for a couple mile jog.

Also, from what I understand, the tobacco that was smoked during his time was not the harsh addicting kind that we have these days. So this is in defense of Spurgeon.. as though he needed it.

Guess what? I smoke! I have seen these kinds of discussions before and have found them rather fruitless. I've even had them with myself in my own head <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

I have tried everything to quit and just can't. I sometimes wonder if God will have to be the one to "deliver" me.. because if I do it on my own, I will get prideful. Who knows.. what I DO know, is that this in particular is between me and God. This is one of those areas where one should not judge. I think that if I were just a casual smoker, I would not have any issue with it.
Anyway.. that's it! Just my nasty little opinion <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Michele

Re: Spurgeon [Re: MHeath] #10071
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:20 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:20 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


I think we can all agree here that we don't want to be the health police to one another!
Enough has been said already and this hasn't been the most edifying conversation. There has been a lot more heat than light, get it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Re: Spurgeon #10072
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:21 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:21 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Gerry to clue you in the only thing that bothers me with regard to my physical condition is that I can't kick people in the head any more because of a training injury and the fact that now that I am older it sometimes takes me two hits to make these young bucks stay down. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10073
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:28 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:28 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,454
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,454
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Joe

That is why I said "I can only speak for myself".
I don't want to make a blanket statement for everyone. But I do know myself and if I started smoking I would be in rebellion.
With food, I see it as a moderation issue, but with smoking one is too much for me.

Tom

Re: Spurgeon #10074
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:43 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:43 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Quote
Susan said:
I think we can all agree here that we don't want to be the health police to one another!
Enough has been said already and this hasn't been the most edifying conversation. There has been a lot more heat than light, get it?


First of all Susan with regard to the Health Police AMEN

And I was thinking about finding some conduit over here so I could lower my heat bill.


Re: Spurgeon #10075
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:10 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
And I was thinking about finding some conduit over here so I could lower my heat bill.
I roll my own conduit <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: MHeath] #10076
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:24 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Michele,

Well stated. We will be praying for you. When smoking (or anything else) has control over us and not us (that is God in us) over it then of course it becomes a sin. Christ is Lord. He not only can, but will deliver-but you know this. The good news is that (1) God has convicted about quiting/slowing down (2) we all have struggles like this so we can continue to see Him as Lord (3) this causes faith to grow in us (4) and the victory is His, though we benefit from it greatly.

May God bless.

P.S. A friend of mine use to smoke 2 packs a day. He finally quit. He has on his desk his Bible and a cartoon of cigarettes. Everyday he says he chooses life. This was his way or dealing with himself--as you and Tom said this becomes rather personal and thus some methodologies work for some....oh, and he super-glued the cigarrete carton...


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10077
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:35 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Michigan, USA
MHeath Offline
Addict
MHeath  Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Michigan, USA
Joe..

He superglued it right to his desk???? SUCH TORTURE! LOLOL. Oh my.

Thank you for being so nice about it.

I love the way y'all word things.

"(1) God has convicted about quiting/slowing down (2) we all have struggles like this so we can continue to see Him as Lord (3) this causes faith to grow in us (4) and the victory is His, though we benefit from it greatly."

Always giving glory to God, which I just love. Also, makes me refocus, and really remember why we live and breathe. To give God glory. Not why we work all day to keep our salvation, and keep God happy so He doesn't kill us and send us to hell. UGh.

That is one reason why I love to read Spurgeon. Even a dork like me can understand him, and he always points us to Jesus Christ.

Anyway.. thanks again! I pray for y'all too, as I think of it!

Michele

Re: Spurgeon [Re: MHeath] #10078
Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:25 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:25 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
He super-glued the cigarette carton together so it would almost be impossible to get into it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Actually, it may have been hot-glue as is was yellow in color, thick, and murky looking.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Spurgeon [Re: J_Edwards] #10079
Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:40 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:40 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Joe:


You asked the question where I got the idea that you got permission from your doctor to smoke. I got it from the following sentence in one of your posts:

Quote
As far as the body issue, yes it should be a concern, but 1 (example) pipe smoke a week I doubt will harm the body any more than me having a desert every now and then, though I have HBP (my doc approved 1 per week).


You accuse me of misrepresenting the facts about the previous thread on this subject wherein I said "I seem to recall" you saying you smoked a pipe occasionally. Sorry Joe if you call that missrepresenting the facts. I don't have a perfect memory and am very aware of it, that is why I said "seem to recall". I didn't go back and search the thread to see what you said and I don't intend to frankly Joe because arguing over smoking is a total waste of time in my opinion. There is nothing healthy about it.

Yes, many people have natural tendencies to lots of things Joe and some of them are sin. I happen to like the smell of some tobacco smoke occasionally, but smelling it, at it's odor threshold which is often at the ppm level is a great deal different than intentionlly taking the the substance into the mouth or lungs to derive the "benefits" of the drugs and chemicals it contains. This is done at orders of magnitude higher concentrations than smelling it.

As to Spurgeon's over eating, yes, it is possible that he had a glandular problem. But the fact that he was obiese is not debateable. The picture is clear. People who look like Spurgeon in his later pictures are grossly over weight. I know because I have studied the issue and studied and discussed it with my Dr, and I worked in the Occupation/Environmental health field for 20 years, worked in Corporate Medical departments, have a Masters in OH/EH, and have lectured to some of the best and brightest in industry on these subjects and I know what I'm talking about.

Now, as to my making a big deal out of Spurgeons over eating perhaps I shouldn't have made that point because there is a possiblity that there were complicating issues. Even so, if he had a glandular problem, and his metablolism was slow I am not sure that the answer is to keep on eating such that one gains weight. My doctor has advised me other wise.

My point in making the post originally was not to get side tracked on Spurgeons sin or lack thereof but rather to focus on how we often get all wrapped up in doctrines while avoiding practical issues of obedience in our own lives, and I used smoking and eating as two examples, and I included my own struggle and the Lords dealings with me in the matter.

That was the point of the post Joe, and btw, believing in historical premillenialism is not a sin Joe. Disagreeing with Joe is not a sin Joe, and yes Joe, I'm glad to see that you have posted something on your struggle with control because it is indeed evident in your posts, and your responses to mine on this issue are several cases in point.

It is you, Joe, who came out swinging and accused me of all kinds of false things and it is not the first time you have done this to me and others on this site. You can be quite heavy handed and accusatory at times and I regret at times saying anything for fear of being misunderstood.

As to your position on smoking, you accuse me of being illogical but nothing is more illogical than claiming smoking is ok, and demanding specific scripture that prohibits it is absolutly rediculous, in my opinion. If you can smoke to God's glory then go ahead. If you can smoke in a holy way then go ahead, if you can smoke in your temple without harming it, go ahead, but I have no plans to do so myself, nor, what is worse, to advise others weaker in the faith to do so.

In Him,

Gerry

Re: Spurgeon #10080
Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:36 PM
Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
You asked the question where I got the idea that you got permission from your doctor to smoke. I got it from the following sentence in one of your posts:
Please re-read it. Sorry you have now missed it twice.

Quote
As to Spurgeon's over eating, yes, it is possible that he had a glandular problem. But the fact that he was obiese is not debateable.
The problem here is that you claim that Spurgeon and his obesity are related to his sin of which you have no knowledge. You relate all obesity to sin.

Quote
My point in making the post originally was not to get side tracked on Spurgeons sin or lack thereof but rather to focus on how we often get all wrapped up in doctrines while avoiding practical issues of obedience in our own lives, and I used smoking and eating as two examples, and I included my own struggle and the Lords dealings with me in the matter.
I agree with you here. True theology is that which is lived out.

Quote
That was the point of the post Joe, and btw, believing in historical premillenialism is not a sin Joe. Disagreeing with Joe is not a sin Joe, and yes Joe, I'm glad to see that you have posted something on your struggle with control because it is indeed evident in your posts, and your responses to mine on this issue are several cases in point.
This is an ongoing “joke” here about the eschatological views. Look at the <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Quote
It is you, Joe, who came out swinging and accused me of all kinds of false things and it is not the first time you have done this to me and others on this site. You can be quite heavy handed and accusatory at times and I regret at times saying anything for fear of being misunderstood.
My first post asks you a series of 4 questions. But, in your 1st reply to me you stated, “Therefore, for you to plead ignorance of the matter is most sad my friend, and for you to accuse me of falsly pointing out Spurgeons error is even more grevious” to which you have now said you were in error—at least in part. Then you made this false question/accusation which you later followed up with others: “Is it because you smoke, Joe, that you are blind to these things?” To these first blows Gerry I responded with both a Scriptural and brief historical lesson, to which one member here commented, “I want to compliment you on this post. You really did your homework and kept to the topic. I learned a lot from your reply.” Thus, Gerry you have need to re-evaluate even this.

IMHO this topic is now closed.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 27 guests, and 129 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael, Ray
927 Registered Users
Shout Box
June
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
767,143 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.146s Queries: 15 (0.041s) Memory: 3.1901 MB (Peak: 3.6072 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-20 07:25:18 UTC